Christopher M. Fairman, Institutionalized Word Taboo: The Continuing Saga of FCC Indecency Regulation "This article (1) traces the rise of indecency regulation, (2) explains the invalidity of the assumptions used to justify it, (3) introduces word taboo as an explanation for the resilience of regulation, and (4) offers preferable options providing a path for science and reason to triumph over institutionalized word taboo."

Deven R. Desai, Speech, Citizenry, and the Market: A Corporate Public Figure Doctrine: public figures don’t and can’t own their reputations. Yet, through trademark and commercial speech doctrines corporations have powerful control over their reputations. If corporations are people for free speech purposes, as a constitutional matter, their control over their reputations can be no greater than the control other public figures have.

James Grimmelmann, Speech Engines, "search engines are not primarily conduits or editors, but advisors. [...] The advisor theory yields fresh insights into long-running disputes about Google. It suggests, for example, a new approach to deciding when Google should be liable for giving a website the 'wrong' ranking."

Alexander Tsesis, Inflammatory Speech: Offense Versus Incitement, "The commonly accepted notion that content regulations on speech violate the First Amendment is misleading. In three recent cases - Snyder v. Phelps, Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Ass’n, and United States v. Stevens - the Court made clear that free speech includes the right to express scurrilous, disgusting, and disagreeable ideas. A different set of cases, however, concluded that group defamation, intentional threats, and material support for terrorist organizations are not protected forms of expression. This Article seeks to make sense of this doctrinal dichotomy and to develop clearer guidelines for regulating incitements that are posted on the Internet and in public areas."